Locking guns won't do anything to save lives

[Qaz98]

I've become really irritated about these discussions with colleagues now (I don't usually partake in them).

But I like to start with facts.

1) Number of people killed annually in the US (including suicides) "by guns" (~31,000 in 2016)
2) Number of people killed in car crashes. (~37,500 in 2016)
3) Number of people killed by heart disease. (~630,000 in 2016)
4) Number of people killed by strokes. (~140,000 in 2016)
5) Number of drug overdose deaths (~64,000 in 2016)

All stats by CDC or NHTSA.

And once you look at those stats the discussions of people dying "by guns" are pretty irrelevant. It's not enough to make a significant difference (literally). Even if you eliminated every gun, you wouldn't eliminate the totality of those 31,000 deaths "by guns", because fully 50% of them are suicides and 40% of that total is gang-related violence. So, we're going to inconvenience 80,000,000 legal gun owners to prevent ~3,000 deaths.

For some reason, putting gun statistics in perspective doesn't work. 80-90 kids die a year from accidental shooting. There are also 3500 pool deaths a year, 20% are less than 14yo (700), and another 3500 kids are injured from drowning related injuries. "Yeah, but my pool isn't going to go out and kill someone," or "Yeah, but my pool wasn't designed to kill." All these statistics do, is expose the other side - are you really worried about some untrue epidemic? Or do you just want to ban all guns - because you cannot reasonably tell me that you want to spend money and effort on an area with a small impact, compared to other types of death. The same logic is applied to AR-15s in mass shootings, vs figuring out how to stem gang violence in the inner cities.

[RevolverRob]

For some reason, putting gun statistics in perspective doesn't work. 80-90 kids die a year from accidental shooting. There are also 3500 pool deaths a year, 20% are less than 14yo (700), and another 3500 kids are injured from drowning related injuries. "Yeah, but my pool isn't going to go out and kill someone," or "Yeah, but my pool wasn't designed to kill." All these statistics do, is expose the other side - are you really worried about some untrue epidemic? Or do you just want to ban all guns - because you cannot reasonably tell me that you want to spend money and effort on an area with a small impact, compared to other types of death. The same logic is applied to AR-15s in mass shootings, vs figuring out how to stem gang violence in the inner cities.

With dedicated gun banners, statistics and logic will not matter. For that matter, once these folks ban guns they'll ban knives, swimming pools, alcohol, non-autonomous cars, all cars which pollute, all motorcycles, all sex without a prophylactic, and all fun - except for marijuana, that they'll keep.

But realistically, for the average person, of which there are many, that only hear what the talking heads on the radio/tv say and/or read articles in WaPo they say, "Why do gun owners oppose "safe storage" laws?"

And the answer is simple, "First, by and large gun owners already use safe storage. Second, numerically speaking the potential for deaths prevented by so-called "safe storage" is not statistically relevant (cite stats above). Third, "safe storage" isn't incentivized by tax exemptions or tax breaks, why not? We give tax breaks for buying hybrid or electric cars or putting solar panels on our houses? If we want to encourage safe storage of firearms, how about we incentivize it?"

Or instead of my third point above. You can go with an alternative - "Firearms locks are provided with every single firearms purchase in the country, currently. The ability to safely store firearms is provided from the outset and as a result, the number of accidental deaths from firearms not properly secured is ~3000, which is about 1% of the total number of people killed via malpractice (~250,000 people annually according to Johns Hopkins). Or put into another sense, over 300,000,000 guns are in the U.S. And less than 1/10th of a percent are stored inappropriately to result in accidental deaths."

That generally gets them chewing on thoughts for awhile, before they get distracted by POTUS tweeting. And life goes on.

[Gadfly]

Tag for later reading....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lester Polfus]

I've become really irritated about these discussions with colleagues now (I don't usually partake in them).

But I like to start with facts.

1) Number of people killed annually in the US (including suicides) "by guns" (~31,000 in 2016)
2) Number of people killed in car crashes. (~37,500 in 2016)
3) Number of people killed by heart disease. (~630,000 in 2016)
4) Number of people killed by strokes. (~140,000 in 2016)
5) Number of drug overdose deaths (~64,000 in 2016)

All stats by CDC or NHTSA.

And once you look at those stats the discussions of people dying "by guns" are pretty irrelevant. It's not enough to make a significant difference (literally). Even if you eliminated every gun, you wouldn't eliminate the totality of those 31,000 deaths "by guns", because fully 50% of them are suicides and 40% of that total is gang-related violence. So, we're going to inconvenience 80,000,000 legal gun owners to prevent ~3,000 deaths.

And that's why if I were King For A Day, I'd tax the shit out of junk food, and heavily subsidize healthy shit like fruits and vegetables.

Personally, I lock my guns up. Always. In 2002 I left a Glock 27 on the back of a toilet in my home for five minutes, while my oldest daughter was watching cartoons in the next room, and that has been the biggest lapse in the last 25 years, but I'm far more concerned on a macro level about the fact that we are litterally dying and going bankrupt as a country from too many Big Macs and not enough ex ercise.

[pangloss]

Third, "safe storage" isn't incentivized by tax exemptions or tax breaks, why not? We give tax breaks for buying hybrid or electric cars or putting solar panels on our houses? If we want to encourage safe storage of firearms, how about we incentivize it?"

That's an idea worth writing my congressmen about. I could really use a second safe and a bedside lock box for a pistol.


Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[TDA]

The thought had occurred to me that it could have been a great proactive PR move for the NRA to go to Gun safe manufacturers and negotiate a big rebate in exchange for direct mailing it to the menbership. Then they could come out and say “everyone’s circumstances are different, and we don’t want to dictate what’s mandatory, but we want everyone who needs a gun safe to be able to afford one.” Too much time devoted to the mendacious percentage of the anti-gun partisans looses all the people in the middle who can barely be bothered to care despite the constant propaganda barrage. And really, who wants a gun stolen?

[RevolverRob]

I've often wished that the V-Line "Rifle Case" was about $100-150 cheaper. At 4-bills, it's half-way to a decent sized safe in terms of cost, but it's small enough to be put almost anywhere. The Simplex + Barrel Key locks make it really secure. I'd love to see the NRA or SAF negotiate a discount with V-Line. Hell, even $100 off any product $350+ and $50 off anything up to $350 would make a big difference for some folks (myself included, in that I could afford to add another secure storage unit in the house, or upgrade the one in my vehicle).

http://www.vlineind.com/shop/rifle-c...se-rifle-safe/

ETA: Don't forget folks to check with your home owners/renter's insurance provider. When you have guns and jewelry appraised or inventoried safe, secure, storage should earn you a discount.

[Totem Polar]

As an aside, gun safes are exempt from sales tax in WA state. No kidding.

[Drang]

Another point: In WA, gun owners can be held liable if they don't lock their guns up and prohibited persons use them illicitly; I forget whether it is in the Revised Code of Washington or the Washington Administrative Code, but it's covered under "reckless endangerment" or something similar.
Since this usually involves someone's kid(s) getting into the guns and either killing themselves or other kids, it is rarely pursued, under the theory that "they're suffering enough."

[Sensei]

Couple of thoughts:

1) The rate of accidental death and serious injury from all causes (car, gun, drowning, etc.) has been decreasing in America for decades. While the opiate epidemic threatens this trend, improved safety measures and education across all aspects of American life have contributed to thousands being saved. Those efforts have also reset the norms in society so that what was once common (keeping the parent’s handgun in the sock drawer or a shotgun in the closet) is no longer acceptable. I’m cool with that.

2) Virtually all of “accidental” gun deaths are not accidents; they are negligent. Those whose negligence results in the death of others often get to reflect on their actions in prison. I’m completely cool with that.